Target Refuses To Talk To Bloggers And "Non-Traditional Media Outlets"
A Target billboard depicting a woman spreadeagled over a Target logo with her vagina centered squarely on the bullseye has some parents and feminists all riled up. One of them, Amy from ShapingYouth.org, contacted Target to see if they realized, you know, that their ad had a woman's crotch centered on a bullseye.
Their response has us sort of baffled:
"Good Morning Amy,Whatever you may think of the ad, (we don't really care) the idea that blogs do not reach Target's "core guest" is idiotic. This website is a non-traditional media outlet and we're certain that our readers shop at Target.Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day."
Taking Aim at Target: Think That V is a CoinkyDink? [ShapingYouth]
Target Snubs Offended Parent Who Blogs [TheDeets]
Target Corporation assumes feminism is dead; dismisses bloggers [PEM]
Vagina Ads [BuzzFeed]
Target Targets Female Target [AdRants]
This is a test using rich text formatting and html links. It's the generic "company" ad that should appear on all posts with the Company category if they don't have an ad attached to a specific company.
Post a comment
Comments:
Oh puh-leez! I don't blame Target for not responding. Sure it's centered right on there, but there is nothing else that's suggestive about it in the least bit. It's their corporate logo, and they're making fun use of it. You have to realllly be looking in order to get upset over this.
I do think that their reason for not responding was just an excuse and a shut-the-hell-up. Have they ever given y'all this reasoning? (If you tried to contact them about anything in the past)?
*sigh*
jeez... nothing better to bitch about today I guess?
I would say that not talking to bloggers is a policy because they could very well be contacted by all of the millions of bloggers, a majority of whom have very limited readership, yet feel they are now part of the media.
Perhaps it would be wize to consider the source asking for the interview before giving a blanket "No" to bloggers, but looking at it from a corporate structure point of view, who do you pay to research who is and isnt "media?" Its probably easier to just stick to traditional news outlets.
Also... and this is a BIG probability... traditional news sources are probably not going to waste their time wanting a comment on a stupid ad that is only seen as perverted by people with that mindset.
The last thing I thought when I saw the ad was that the woman vagina was in the center of the target. But then again, I have better things to do than be a morality nazi. Not many better things... but at least a few.
@sled_dog: You know, I bet they were shooting with it perfectly centered, then someone at the shoot said, "You know what? Better move her off to the right a little bit - we don't want those feminist blogs to get in a huff about this."
@youbastid: I'm not entirely sure that everyone share's that opinion. I'm a guy, and I can laugh at it, but I'm not at all surprised that someone would find it offensive.
It's a woman laying spread eagle over a bullseye. At the center of the bullseye is her vagina.
If you can't say those two sentences to your daughter and your mother, then it's offensive. And WTF. It's the marketing platform of a department store that is trying to cater to young women.
Oh well.
about the "no comments to bloggers" thing. We'll see how well that goes after the next few shitstorms over something silly target does.
One issue with blogs is that it's sometimes hard to tell if it is a legitimate and established blog or just someone with access to the internet, basic typing skills, time and the believe that someone out there cares about what they have to say. Take a look at Digg. The vast majority of their blog submissions are from, because of lack of a better term, a bunch of nobodies.
@Hyland: Is that the case? Why is the placement of her crotch something I have to be comfortable talking to my parents and/or kids about? "I saw a girl walking down the street yesterday, and her vagina was in her pants." Is that necessary?
Maybe if their corporate logo wasn't a bullseye, I'd wonder why they chose to use a bullseye. And maybe if not for the eye's natural preference for symmetry, I would have questioned why they chose to position her in the middle of it.
Don't forget that this ad is winter themed. Her outspread arms imply that she's going through the motions of making a snow angel. To see her as spread eagled with her vagina in the middle of a bullseye suggests more of the viewer than it does of the ad.
You know, despite the ad, I've got to agree with Target. Anybody can claim to be a "blogger." Companies don't have unlimited resources to provide well researched answers to every Joe Blow that shows up and claims to be a blogger. Hell, if you showed up claiming to be Podunk Times, they'd probably verify who you are at first. This isn't an indictment against Consumerist, either. They have no idea who you are. If there were an accepted Nielson for blogs (or some other authoritative source), you'd be highly respected, reach-wise. But until then, anyone's a blogger.
Recognizing blogs as press for press events is another matter. Give you some space on the floor, and that's it.
Look, I am as much a horny dog as the next guy, but I just can't see it in this billboard. When I look at it, I find my eyes drawn up to her smile, not centered on her crotch.
It's not as if she were wearing a bikini or wrapped in a towel. Just looks like a pretty girl having fun to me. If this offends you, you might want to take a look at your obsession with sex and female body parts more than the mindset of the advertiser.
I would bet that there are quite a few billboards in close proximity to this one that are more sexual and offensive.
@dapuddle:
Y'know, I'm a feminist, and I don't get riled up by this ad. Now, if we want to discuss pay inequality, global lack of access to family planning options and ... Hey, where are y'alls going?
What I see when looking at this picture is a person laying on a red & white target, legs and arms extended, dressed in white with red, laughing and having fun. There is no subliminal message. If you want to imagine this person's vagina; fine; keep it to yourself. Lighten up!! Enjoy the fun Target ad picture without microscopic examination.. Life is too short...
I honestly have trouble believing the gynecological centering [or near-centering] of the photo was accidental. But I really doubt that having this ad on public display will traumatize children or anything. I really don't find it more offensive than most of the previous 1,999,999,999,999+ advertisements that have been made around the female anatomy. It's amore subtle form of what the marketing industries been doing since they started.
It can have a sexual connotation without being offensive. Is there a possible sexual interpretation to this picture? Sure. Was it intentional on the part of the agency that created the ad? Almost certainly. Does it rise to the level of "offensive"? I don't think so, and I tend to skew conservative when it comes to issues like sex in advertising. But I do think this image - and images like it - are worth discussing, in terms of visual rhetoric if nothing else.
I don't care about the picture, but their response reeks of sneering "We're better than your crappy blog".
Earth to Target: the definition of what's traditional media is going to be changing really fast in the next few years. It's already changed a lot in the last few.
Get with the freakin' program.
This ad is less sexual than an American Apparel ad. I do however find my eye drifting to her crotch because it's an upshot near centered on a it. Hitting anywhere in the center circle of a target is a bulls-eye. Her crotch is in the bulls-eye. Offensive? No. Suggestive? Absolutely. If one is the kind of feminist that wants to neuter everyone to prevent "objectifying the female form," then sure, this is super offensive. Women's vaginas shouldn't be a bulls-eyes.
























I was wondering why this ad suddenly made feel like shopping at Target.